I HAVE A RIGHTDoubt it.
We are covering the business it is of the government whether or not a seat belt is used.
No, it would still not be the business of the government.
You are simply trying to bribe people into giving up rights.
My point is that if a group of people do not wear seatbelts, they have a higher risk. Do they need to disclose that to the insurance company? How does the insurance company ascertain that the information is valid? Do other drivers absorb the risk of not having to wear a seatbelt?We pay insurance companies to assume the risk for us since we cannot afford to ourselves. Why shouldn’t they increase the price for an increase in risk?
If we are to be a free people, then we also have freedom to make choices you do not necessarily approve of.I HAVE A RIGHT
arguments with mold and cobwebs …
rights, rights, rights …
I have a right to make my kids orphans…
I have a right to make my wife widow…
I have a right to make my parents cry at my funeral…
I have a right to make my friends grieve me…
In shoRt…
I HAVE A RIGHT
My experience as well as the information provided me by the insurance agents I have spoken with indicate that only those that do not use belts are charged extra for the higher risk.My point is that if a group of people do not wear seatbelts, they have a higher risk. Do they need to disclose that to the insurance company? How does the insurance company ascertain that the information is valid? Do other drivers absorb the risk of not having to wear a seatbelt?
There is no lower rates (as far as I know) on insurance in NH…yet it still remains the 3rd safest state.My point is that if a group of people do not wear seatbelts, they have a higher risk. Do they need to disclose that to the insurance company? How does the insurance company ascertain that the information is valid? Do other drivers absorb the risk of not having to wear a seatbelt?
I know my accident would have cost more if I had no seatbelt. I went forward and was stopped by my seatbelt. A head injury would have cost my insurance company more that the over 10,000 that it did cost.
So, in New Hampshire is there a positive reinforcement to use seatbelts, ie lower risk rates for those who do?..or does the insurance industry assume all NH residents don’t use it, and rates are higher?
My state the fine is about 60…and I just found out that it is primary enforcement. I’ve been using the seatbelt for 23 years, I haven’t gotten a fine ever.
My motivation is not going through the windsheild, not avoiding the 60 dollar fine.
Do you need to tell them that you wear a seatbelt when you get car insurance. (I’m assuming you live in NH, and I’m curious)Is there positive reinforcement (lower rates) for seat belt waiting NH residents? I can’t imagine no one wears them in NHThere is no lower rates (as far as I know) on insurance in NH…yet it still remains the 3rd safest state.
Like you pointed out, laws don’t save people, they make their own decisions.
I live in New England, so I’m close to the matter. That’s all I can say. I’ve had the privlege of needing to investigate purchase auto insurance in every New England state, Illinois, New York and Ohio, so I do know a little bit about the matter. The questinaare is pretty standard, though my insurace company (primarly brick and mortar) seems to ask less while online only insurance companies such as Gieco and Esurance tend to have very long questionaares.Do you need to tell them that you wear a seatbelt when you get car insurance. (I’m assuming you live in NH, and I’m curious)Is there positive reinforcement (lower rates) for seat belt waiting NH residents? I can’t imagine no one wears them in NH
I got life insurance. I had to let them know if I smoked, drove a motorcycle etc I don’t do those things, I got a very good rate on my life insurance policy.
.
The fine isn’t a deterent to me. It might be a deterrent for others, others might need to actually go through the windsheild before they start buckling up.
The law does change one thing, which likely reiterates your point.My point has always been that the law dosn’t change anything…infact…if you look at the safest states and compare with the most dangerous states statics would indicate that states are better off not having a law.
If the government funds your private schools, how do they stay private?Hey v, you know what? I’ve been doing some research.
Here in Australia we pay comparable tax rates to the US (when you factor in that we don’t have state income tax and have a slightly lower rate of corporate tax). With not a lot of extra tax money our governments manage to find a healthy dose of funding for private as well as public schools and hospitals.
The money provided the government should not be there to suppress freedoms, it should be there to defend those freedoms.You call it ‘big government’ - I call it ‘big return on the investment you make by way of taxes’. Why are you so scared of governments that actually put the money the taxpayers entrust to them to work?